±Forensic Focus Partners

Become an advertising partner

±Your Account


Username
Password

Forgotten password/username?

Site Members:

New Today: 3 Overall: 35279
New Yesterday: 4 Visitors: 150

±Follow Forensic Focus

Forensic Focus Facebook PageForensic Focus on TwitterForensic Focus LinkedIn GroupForensic Focus YouTube Channel

RSS feeds: News Forums Articles

±Latest Articles

±Latest Webinars

Interesting Supreme Court decision

Computer forensics discussion. Please ensure that your post is not better suited to one of the forums below (if it is, please post it there instead!)
Reply to topicReply to topic Printer Friendly Page
Forum FAQ • Search • View unanswered posts
 
  

jaclaz
Senior Member
 

Interesting Supreme Court decision

Post Posted: Jun 22, 18 09:18

CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES

www.supremecourt.gov/o...2_h315.pdf


Accordingly, when the Government tracks the location of a cell phone it achieves near perfect surveillance, as if it had attached an ankle monitor to the phone’s user.

Moreover, the retrospective quality of the data here gives police access to a category of information otherwise unknowable. In the past, attempts to reconstruct a per-
son’s movements were limited by a dearth of records and the frailties of recollection. With access to CSLI, the Government can now travel back in time to retrace a
person’s whereabouts, subject only to the retention polices of the wireless carriers, which currently maintain records for up to five years. Critically, because location infor-
mation is continually logged for all of the 400 million devices in the United States—not just those belonging to persons who might happen to come under investigation—this newfound tracking capacity runs against everyone.

Unlike with the GPS device in Jones, police need not even know in advance whether they want to follow a particular individual, or when.
Whoever the suspect turns out to be, he has effectively been tailed every moment of every day for five years, and the police may—in the Government’s view—call upon the
results of that surveillance without regard to the constraints of the Fourth Amendment. Only the few without cell phones could escape this tireless and absolute surveillance.


'nuff said.

jaclaz
_________________
- In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. - 
 
  

the_Grinch
Senior Member
 

Re: Interesting Supreme Court decision

Post Posted: Jun 22, 18 12:38

Doesn't change my work as we were getting warrants anyway. Ultimately I've felt the court has been making a lot of good decisions as it relates to cell phones. It really helps us counter Apple and the public who seem to believe that law enforcement is taking devices to just search because we have nothing better to do.  
 
  

Nick.Barker1011
Newbie
 

Re: Interesting Supreme Court decision

Post Posted: Jun 22, 18 12:43

Most agencies are already using warrants. There are a few states, like Georgia, who were allowing police to get CDRs with a court order but most were still using search warrants.

CellHawk has a free support site to help investigators write their search warrants. Investigators can take any number, search it, get the provider info, and then get an automated search warrant template that they can put into their own letterhead. Thousands of agencies are using them and getting the records back without any issues.

support.hawkanalytics.com/  
 
  

jaclaz
Senior Member
 

Re: Interesting Supreme Court decision

Post Posted: Jun 23, 18 05:31

- Nick.Barker1011

CellHawk has a free support site to help investigators write their search warrants.

Nick, for clarity/full disclosure, you should add your qualifications of Marketing Manager of HawkAnalytics in your posts (or add them in your signature).

jaclaz
_________________
- In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is. - 
 

Page 1 of 1